Whats the sharpest Nikkor SLR MF Wide Angle?

Interesting Sevo. Thanks.

That lens stays glued to my FM2... Its a scale focusing, hip shooting, architecture capturing, self portrait at arms length, sharp, creative lens.

Do you know if you can tell I like it...
 
The 28/2.0 Ai and the 35/1.4 AiS are exceptional. I don't think any of the other MF wides are as good overall. The 24/2.8 AF version was pretty good, but the build on mine was awful- early AF "mechanics".
 
sparrow6224 said:
As opposed to the 24/2.8. I suspect you initiated this inquiry because the 24/2.8 leaves you cold....Sharp, not sharp, it's thoroughly lifeless and unexceptional in my experience.
Click to expand...

yes, I was probing without suggesting. I dont get the same feeling from my 24 as my other nikkors.. I was wondering if its just that unit or if they were all that way or if its just my imagination.
 
sparrow6224 said:
But if you're on a budget, the AIS 20/3.5 (unlike the Nikon 24mm lenses, 2.0 and 2.8 both) will never disappoint you: there is just something about the way that lens renders that is immensely pleasing.
Click to expand...

is this the one you speak of?
ais2035.jpg
 
The 20mm f/3.5 isn't so much sharp as it is flare-resistant, even at f/4.
As for the sharpest wide, it's probably one of the 28mm lenses with CRC but those seem to be optimized for close focus as others have mentioned.

Also, the cost of entry into Nikon rangefinders is WAY below $2500 unless you're limiting yourself to the very recently produced S3 or SP bodies. If you get an S2 with a 5cm f/1.4 or f/2 lens you're looking at about $700 ish for a tip-top working camera and a fantastic lens. SP body will run you about $1000 fully working without a lens. There is some give and take on those prices too.

Phil Forrest
 
Phil_F_NM said:
The 20mm f/3.5 isn't so much sharp as it is flare-resistant, even at f/4.
As for the sharpest wide, it's probably one of the 28mm lenses with CRC but those seem to be optimized for close focus as others have mentioned.

Also, the cost of entry into Nikon rangefinders is WAY below $2500 unless you're limiting yourself to the very recently produced S3 or SP bodies. If you get an S2 with a 5cm f/1.4 or f/2 lens you're looking at about $700 ish for a tip-top working camera and a fantastic lens. SP body will run you about $1000 fully working without a lens. There is some give and take on those prices too.

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

Phil I already have the Nikon FM SLR and several lenses. If I got a better wide angle it would be less than 150. Can 2500 really be justified, is it that much better?
 
sepiareverb said:
The 28/2.0 Ai and the 35/1.4 AiS are exceptional. I don't think any of the other MF wides are as good overall. The 24/2.8 AF version was pretty good, but the build on mine was awful- early AF "mechanics".
Click to expand...

Bob, I think the 35 1.4 has significant barrel distortion.

otherwise, the 28 2.8 AIS is really good, but knows how to flare when asked politely.
 
68degrees said:
Phil I already have the Nikon FM SLR and several lenses. If I got a better wide angle it would be less than 150. Can 2500 really be justified, is it that much better?
Click to expand...

I don't justify an expenditure of $2500 just out of personal preference but many do. You're going to be hard pressed to find a good wide angle for $150. The 24, 28 and 35mm lenses mostly spoken about in this thread range from about $275-700. The low end of that scale is for a very well used lens. I know I've been looking to get a 24mm or 28mm f/2 for some time now.

As for rangefinder v. SLR, what you get in a wide is the potential to shoot relatively distortion free. Pardon me if you're not still talking about rangefinder cameras and lenses.
That is, a true non-retrofocal lens will only give you geometric distortion, not barrel or pincushion like you find in all but the very finest, most corrected SLR lenses. These RF lenses include the: 2.1cm Nikkors for RF and F, CZ 35mm f/2.8 Biogon, Jupiter-12, 21mm Super Angulon, 2.5cm Nikkor, Carl Zeiss Hologon 15/16mm and Topogon 25mm, 21mm and 28mm Leica Elmarits with very deep rear elements, and there are surely a few more out there.
What you sacrifice by using these is even field illumination at wide apertures but that is the same with all wide angles, only more pronounced with true non-retrofocal lenses.

Rangefinders can be a great expense but at the same time they can be had relatively inexpensively and you can get some extremely high quality optics for them for little money if you know where to look and are patient.

As for your FM, Find out what focal lengths you like shooting at and maybe divide that by 1.5 to get your next widest lens. That way you won't have too much overlap that you can otherwise make up for with your feet.

Phil Forrest
 
Phew! How many have compared ALL the Nikkor wides? The more so if we're not specifying how wide. I was mightily impressed by both the 24/2.8 and the 21/4 'mirror up'. But not so impressed (let alone so experienced) that I'd say they were the best ever, especially as compared with the lenses I haven't tried.

Cheers,

R.
 
Phil_F_NM said:
I don't justify an expenditure of $2500 just out of personal preference but many do. You're going to be hard pressed to find a good wide angle for $150. The 24, 28 and 35mm lenses mostly spoken about in this thread range from about $275-700. The low end of that scale is for a very well used lens. I know I've been looking to get a 24mm or 28mm f/2 for some time now.

As for rangefinder v. SLR, what you get in a wide is the potential to shoot relatively distortion free. Pardon me if you're not still talking about rangefinder cameras and lenses.
That is, a true non-retrofocal lens will only give you geometric distortion, not barrel or pincushion like you find in all but the very finest, most corrected SLR lenses. These RF lenses include the: 2.1cm Nikkors for RF and F, CZ 35mm f/2.8 Biogon, Jupiter-12, 21mm Super Angulon, 2.5cm Nikkor, Carl Zeiss Hologon 15/16mm and Topogon 25mm, 21mm and 28mm Leica Elmarits with very deep rear elements, and there are surely a few more out there.
What you sacrifice by using these is even field illumination at wide apertures but that is the same with all wide angles, only more pronounced with true non-retrofocal lenses.

Rangefinders can be a great expense but at the same time they can be had relatively inexpensively and you can get some extremely high quality optics for them for little money if you know where to look and are patient.

As for your FM, Find out what focal lengths you like shooting at and maybe divide that by 1.5 to get your next widest lens. That way you won't have too much overlap that you can otherwise make up for with your feet.

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

Nice. Thanks Phil.
 
clayne said:
My experience shows otherwise. It's not soft enough to matter - whereas every other positive it has far outweighs any negatives when shooting it wide-open. But yeah, agreed! This lens sucks, do not buy the 35/1.4!
Click to expand...

By todays standards it's soft wide open at f1.4. I had one and at f1.4 it was not anywhere close to the EF 1.4./35L or my Summilux-ASPH 1.4/35. It will also not stack up against the current Nikkor G or the new Sigma, unless you stop it down.

That said I really liked it's signature, kind of how I like the old Nikkor-S.C 1.4/50. Not as sharp as a modern fast 50, but lots of personality.
 
Harry Lime said:
By todays standards it's soft wide open at f1.4. I had one and at f1.4 it was not anywhere close to the EF 1.4./35L or my Summilux-ASPH 1.4/35. It will also not stack up against the current Nikkor G or the new Sigma, unless you stop it down.
Click to expand...

Does any of that really matter though? It's sharp enough.

That said I really liked it's signature, kind of how I like the old Nikkor-S.C 1.4/50. Not as sharp as a modern fast 50, but lots of personality.
Click to expand...

Correct - and ultimately this is more important than sharpness in the grand scheme of things.
 
For comparisons sake, I own and use the
20mm: f2.8 Ais, f4 factory Ai'd, f3.5 AiS
24mm f2.8, Ais, AF and the rare K version with the previous optics (multicoated) with factory Ai'd.
28mm f2 N (2 copies, yes I like it that much) 28mm f2.8 Ais, use to own the 28mm f2.8 Ai but sold it, and the 28mm f3.5, Ais and Nikkor F.
In 35mm I have two copies of the 35mm f/2 Ais, two of the 35mm f/2 Nikkor F.
Also have 3 or 4 of the 35mm 2.8, Ais, K (sweet sweet) and Nikkor F.
AND for the cake topper: Three (3) copies of the Nikkor 35mm 1.4 N and N.C, one Ai'd by me and two factory Ai'd. I use to have 2 copies of the Ais version of the 35mm 1.4 but I prefer the optical signature of the radioactive version.

So, yes, I have done some comparisons.......Ask me if you care to hear some opinions....
 
Oh and if you're wondering how I ended up with so many lenses:
I started buying MF Nikkors when everyone started dumping them first to hop on the Canon EOS film wave, then again when everyone dumped them for the Nikon AF wave, then the subsequent Digital wave. Some I got for really really low prices, like I just couldn't pass up a 35mm 1.4 with factory Ai for 50.00. Yes, fifty bucks. I know the prices aren't this low anymore but some are pretty undervalued for what they can do as optics.
 
sanmich said:
Bob, I think the 35 1.4 has significant barrel distortion.
Click to expand...

I suppose that could be right- I always shot landscape with it where that wasn't really of concern. I shot several Nikkor 35 lenses over the years and found the 35/1.4 by far the crispest of the lot. I had the PC for quite a while, and two versions of the f2 O lens, Ai and AiS, before the 1.4. As I recall, wide open it is a non-ASPH fast lens: good in the middle and less good in the corners, with some lower contrast than at f2.8 or 4. I noticed an improvement on the slides switching to the 1.4 from the O.

I've always understood the 28/2.8 AiS to be much better close-up than at infinity, but aren't there are several versions of the 28/2.8? I've had students with a 28/2.8 turn out pretty grim images-even at 8x10, AF and MF. Never owned one to directly compare tho. I will say the 28/2.0 was certainly better at all stops than the PC.

I shot the 25~50/4 Zoom a fair bit also, and found it very good, if slow and enormous.

Of all the Nikkors I used shooting stock for years and years I only still own the 28/2, 25~50/4, a 55/3.5 micro and a 50/1.4 Ai'd. The one I miss is the 105/2.0 D/C, but I digress...
 
Thanks for reminding me of the 35mm PC. Got one of those as well, nice optic. Since none of you asked I will tell you;
The Nikkor 35mm Ais F/2 is the best all around 35mm that nikon makes or has made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom